Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.

From: TSS ()
Subject: Animal byproducts found in feed eaten by livestock
Date: December 5, 2006 at 7:57 am PST

Animal byproducts found in feed eaten by livestock
Risk of human exposure to mad cow negligible

Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, December 05, 2006
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said yesterday that 10,000 cattle in Eastern Ontario and West Quebec have consumed feed containing traces of animal byproducts, but the risk of exposing humans to mad cow disease is negligible.

The feed on 113 farms in the Ottawa area became contaminated recently when a rail car used to ship meat and bone meal for hog and poultry feed was later used to transport blood meal that was added to cattle feed.

The beef will be sold to Canadians, but the food inspection agency has decided to track the cattle movements so they cannot be exported.

Darcy Unseth, a veterinarian with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, said Russia and Lebanon refuse to accept meat that comes from cattle exposed to meat and bone meal.

Dr. Unseth said 33 sheep and five goats that ate the feed will be placed under similar transport controls. For privacy reasons, the food inspection agency refused to identify the farms that used the feed.

Agribrands Canada spokesman Rob Meijer said the company voluntarily recalled the feed produced at its plants at Addison, near Brockville, and Drummondville, east of Montreal.

Mr. Meijer said the company disposed of the feed at landfill sites and replaced it with cattle feed that did not contain meat and bone meal.

"Feed ingredients come in bulk rail car shipments and there is a cleanout procedure when you are unloading and loading," Mr. Meijer said. "Our suppliers are supposed to bang on the cars with rubber mallets to shake loose any material that may be caught in corners and then wash the hopper cars.

"Unfortunately, in this case, the cleaning may not have been done thoroughly enough. Out of respect for domestic and international sensitivity on this issue, we wanted to make sure that there was no potential for human or animal concerns. We produced the feed and we take 100-per-cent responsibility for this issue."

Dr. Unseth said the cattle ate the feed for up to two weeks, but there is no evidence the feed is a threat to human health.

Canada has a partial ban on adding animal byproducts to feed. In 1997, the government banned the feeding of cattle remains back to cattle and other ruminants, but it still allows cattle remains to be used in feed for chickens, hogs and pets.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is investigating because the production of cattle feed that includes meat, bones and some other byproducts violates government feed regulations and carries a maximum possible penalty of a $250,000 fine and two years in jail.

There is concern and scientific evidence that cross-contamination of animal feed streams can contribute to the spread of the infectious and persistent prions that cause brain-wasting bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease.

James Atkinson, a University of Guelph animal nutritionist, said meat and bone meal is added to pig and poultry feed as a source of calcium, phosphorus and protein, but the feed industry is under pressure to keep it out of food for ruminant animals that can get BSE.

"The prions that cause BSE are not living organisms, but are malformed proteins that have the capacity to stimulate further production of that malformed protein in the brain," said Mr. Atkinson. "Over the last 10 years, there has been a much more careful streaming of products from slaughter industries so you keep them separate from each other.

"When you are shipping commodities around, there is a potential for things to get mixed in the supply line unless you have dedicated containers."

look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused
7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;

Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog,
Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie
Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe
Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
(vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral
infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to
transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to
non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate
from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological
disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease
at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we
made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which
provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can
prevent transmission of BSE to man.


BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%)
1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum
used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a
similar PrPres concentration that was

inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals
positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of
disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of

bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic
ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected
orally with similar BSE brain inocula

Published online January 27, 2005

It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


6. It also appears to me that Mr Bradley's answer (that it would take less
than say 100

grams) was probably given with the benefit of hindsight; particularly if one

considers that later in the same answer Mr Bradley expresses his surprise
that it

could take as little of 1 gram of brain to cause BSE by the oral route
within the

same species. This information did not become available until the "attack

experiment had been completed in 1995/96. This was a titration experiment

designed to ascertain the infective dose. A range of dosages was used to

that the actual result was within both a lower and an upper limit within the

and the designing scientists would not have expected all the dose levels to

infection. The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that

ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the

scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley's surprise at the results
because all the

dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.

Re: BSE .1 GRAM LETHAL NEW STUDY SAYS via W.H.O. Dr Maura Ricketts

[BBC radio 4 FARM news]

2) Infectious dose:

To cattle: 1 gram of infected brain material (by oral ingestion)


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: